FAQ

A. Why JCall

1

What is JCall?

JCall is a group of European Jewish citizens and friends of Israel who believe that the possibility of peace in the Middle East is dependant on an agreement being reached between Israelis and Palestinians, according to the principle of ‘two states for two peoples.

2

What are the impulses behind the movement?

Each of us is actively involved in the political lives and societies of our respective countries, though we all come from different backgrounds and have varied experiences. What we have in common is an unbreakable link with the State of Israel and a deep concern for its future. We believe it is imperative that a new European Jewish voice be heard working for peace in the Middle East.

3

How pro-Israel are you?

We are for Israel, and we are for peace. It is precisely because we are deeply attached to the existence, security and the future of the state of Israel that we are deeply concerned that the long-term occupation of the Palestinian territories threatens Israel’s very existence, causing lasting harm to its status in the international community, and putting into doubt the possibility of a lasting peace in the region.

4

Why are you speaking out?

We speak out today because it is of the utmost urgency that we do so. If nothing is done in the near future, we are heading towards catastrophe. For Israelis, continuing on the current course means that the Jewish state will become a de facto binational state, facing the choice between a Jewish identity and a democratic identity in the short term, and leading in the longer term to the destruction of both those identities. For the Palestinians, it means the continued denial of their collective and individual rights, an intolerable social and political tension and the risk of the situation spinning out of control. For both sides, it means a further descent into chaos and bloody clashes. If we want to avoid this, we must act quickly.

5

Is it not up to the Israeli government alone to define its political identity?

We agree that both negotiation and decision-making are the responsibility of the democratically elected government of the state of Israel. Nevertheless, every peace process is conducted within an international context that makes it possible both to reach an agreement and to ensure that such an agreement is viable. Creating those conditions must be the central concern of true friends of Israel.

6

Does JCall have a solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict?

We do not pretend to have the perfect recipe for peace. We believe that the survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic nation is dependant on the creation of an independent Palestinian state, with the guaranteed respect of the rights of minorities within each state and guaranteed security for Israel. We support this solution, which has the benefit of a broad international consensus and which is, according to opinion polls, supported by the majority of the citizens on both sides. This two-state solution, which would bring about the establishment of a Palestinian state bordering the state of Israel, would be in the context of a peace agreement agreed on and signed by representatives of both sides.

7

What is your position regarding anti-Israel sentiment in Europe and worldwide?

We are strongly opposed to the anti-Israel rhetoric that is on the increase today in many countries. We believe in the right of the state of Israel to security, to economic prosperity and to social harmony, and to diplomatic relationships with every country in the world. We wish that it would be ‘a light unto the nations’ as its founders dreamed. We are the first to repudiate the lies told about Israel. Our commitment proves that it is possible to reject the politics of the current Israeli government without slipping into the rhetoric of hatred against the state of Israel and its citizens.

8

Do you represent any Israeli organisation?

JCall is an independent initiative supported by European Jews who wish their voices to be heard. It is not linked to any movement or political party in Israel. We are entirely independent, both as individuals and as an organisation, fighting for a just cause with no financial or political support.

B. JCall, Jews and Israel

1

Do Diaspora Jews have the right to speak for Israeli Jews?

Instead of them, no; alongside them, yes. Though the decision ultimately lies with the people of Israel, diaspora Jews must show their solidarity by actively supporting them in making the right decision. When Israelis are unsure of the way forward, Jews and friends of Israel must help guide them.

2

What relationship do you have with other European Jewish organisations?

Without in any way contesting the legitimacy of Jewish institutions, we distance ourselves from those organisations that align themselves systematically with the Israeli government. We insist on the right and the duty of European Jews to express an independent point of view when Israeli politics are damaging to the interests of the Jewish state. With this in mind, our intention is to participate in open dialogue with European Jewish institutions.

3

But are you not in fact a divisive element within the Jewish community?

JCall wants to participate within the context of the broader Jewish community in order to encourage reason to prevail over passion. Jewish communities are not monolithic. There have been differences of opinion regarding Israel since the state of Israel was founded, indeed since the birth of Zionism. Debating these differences is entirely in keeping with our tradition and ultimately reinforces the cohesion of the Jewish people.

4

Are you a marginal presence in the Jewish community?

There is plenty of evidence that our fundamental position is shared with a great number of European Jews. There are those who believe that any criticism of the Israeli government plays into the hands of those who deny the right of the state of Israel to exist. But by broadening the debate, we show that it is possible to defend the vital interests of the state of Israel without falling into the trap of blindly accepting the actions of its government.

5

Do you have links to the American organisation J Street?

J Street defines itself as the ‘political home of Americans who are pro-Israel and pro-peace.’ Our activities are similar, and we have the following relationship: we are represented at their meetings, and they are represented at ours. However our context is different, and there is no official link between the two organisations.

6

Are there any other organisations in Europe like JCall

In Britain a separate organisation called Yahad has been set up, which similarly defines itself as ‘pro-Israel, and pro-peace.’ In continental Europe, JCall is a federal organisation, whose remit is to represent every citizen who supports our position.

7

Where do you position yourself within the European political landscape?

JCall distances itself from partisan politics. We wish to engage in dialogue with European governments and institutions and to promote diplomatic initiatives with the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority, in order to work towards a resolution to the conflict that will find favour with both sides.

8

What is your perspective on Zionism?

Some of us, though not all, call ourselves Zionists, but we all share the belief that Zionism is a movement of national emancipation, and that with the creation of the state of Israel the Jewish people gained the right to self-determination. We believe in the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to the same recognition and the same right to self-determination, without bringing into question the rights of Israelis to live in safety within their borders.

9

What is, in your opinion, the basis of the legitimacy of the state of Israel?

If the state of Israel exists, it is primarily because Jews from all over the world, identifying with the Zionist movement, established a new society in the country. We can discuss ad infinitum the conditions in which the Jewish presence was established and the impact on the Arab population of the country. But it is a fact that today two people live in this land, each with a history, a culture and a collective will. The legitimacy of the Israeli state, like the legitimacy of the future Palestinian state, is based on the right of both peoples to decide their own destiny.

10

What is your opinion of those Jews who refuse to give up a part of Eretz Yisrael?

The Hebrew phrase ‘Eretz Yisrael’ signifies a geographical entity that corresponds to the historic homeland of the Jewish people. The link with Eretz Yisrael, maintained by Jews throughout the long history of their dispersal, is one of the principal elements of the Zionist movement. Nevertheless, this link cannot justify the claim by some Jews to exclusive territorial rights over the ‘totality of Eretz Yisrael,’ because such a claim denies the individual and collective rights of the Palestinians who live there.

11

Doesn’t the idea of dividing the territory put into question the centrality of the idea of Eretz Yisrael and Jerusalem within Judaism?

The centrality of Eretz Yisrael and of Jerusalem in the Jewish historical conscience is a reality. This centrality explains the reaction of many Jews and Israelis to proposals for political settlements which focus on shared sovereignty. But to refuse the idea of sharing is to put in danger the values that are at the heart of Judaism and of the state of Israel. The daily violence of the occupation feeds resentment amongst the occupied population, the practices of occupation damage Israeli society from within, and the image of Israel as a country frozen in its role as occupier is severely damaging to its status within both the international community and the world Jewish community.

C. Peace is both urgent and possible

1

Why does this solution call for two states, and not for a single state for both Jews and Arabs?

A single state would be an artificial entity, which would not be lasting and would end in a bloodbath. Everything, or almost everything, separates these two peoples: history, religion, culture and language. Each of these peoples aspires to self-determination. After long decades of fighting, it is impossible to imagine that either side would accept a single state, when other national entities, who have infinitely more in common – Czechs and Slovaks, or Serbs and Croats – have rejected such a solution. Furthermore, socio-economic disparities between the two populations are so significant that a one state solution would see the Arab population permanently relegated to an inferior status, creating an explosive situation. A one state solution is an illusion that would probably lead to a confrontation that would never end.

2

Does the phrase ‘two states for two peoples’ signify a position of principle or a detailed project?

The details of a political agreement based on the principle of ‘two states for two peoples’ were elaborated over a decade ago with the 2001 ‘Clinton Parameters’ and the Taba Summit. These details were subsequently formalised, after two years of negotiations, by a working group known as the Geneva Initiative, made up of high-ranking Israeli and Palestinian officials. The members of this working group wanted, without intending to stand in for Israeli or Palestinian leaderships, to show that Israeli and Palestinian patriots were able to agree on a reasonable compromise position that would assure the future of both peoples. In fact, during various negotiations between Israel (under successive governments) and the Palestinian Authority, negotiators consistently used methods similar to those outlined by the Geneva Initiative. If Israeli and Palestinian leaders have failed to come to an agreement, it is not due to any lack of legal formulations or detailed maps, but to an absence of political will.

3

What are the essential elements for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement?

The document which was made public on 1st December 2003 by the Geneva Initiative is based on the principle of the coexistence of two independent states, the state of Israel and the state of Palestine, with full diplomatic relations, each recognising the sovereignty and territorial independence of its neighbour, with specific clauses ensuring the security of the state of Israel. The borders are based on the 1967 ‘Green Line’, with minor adjustments to be made by an exchange of territories with equivalent surface, meaning that the large majority of Israelis who today live beyond the ‘Green Line’ would not have to move, since the land where they live today would become part of Israel as part of a territorial exchange. The city of Jerusalem would be the subject of its own agreement, whose terms would agree that each state would have it as its own capital – the state of Israel in Jewish Jerusalem, the state of Palestine in Arab Jerusalem. Palestinian refugees could choose to live in the future state of Palestine, and they would receive indemnities; if they wish to live in a different country, including Israel, that country would decide. The final agreement would bring a definitive end to all claims, territorial or other, between the two sides.

4

Is the Israeli-Palestinian peace process stillborn?

The Oslo Accords, signed on 13th September 1993, were not a definitive peace agreement between the state of Israel and the Palestinians but an intermediary agreement. Based on the principle of mutual recognition, the Accords were part of a process of reconciliation that was intended to end in a definitive end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict five years later. The basic error was to focus on questions of procedure, leaving the most difficult questions till the end. Each partner blamed the other side for delays, blockages and violations in the process: acts of terrorism on the one hand, resumption of settlement building on the other. The impasse was neither inevitable nor irreversible.

5

What remains of the Oslo Accords?

The great hope inspired by the Oslo Accords was replaced by disillusion, and the two sides stopped believing that they had a trustworthy partner with whom they could negotiate. Since the beginning of the second Intifada in 2000, no negotiation towards a definitive peace agreement has been completed. However, whatever one thinks of the Oslo Accords, they have left one precious legacy: the creation of the Palestinian Authority, which remains committed to a two-state solution. The Israeli government must negotiate with the PA to find a solution, as long as it remains possible.

6

Are the positions of the Israelis and the Palestinians irreparably antagonistic?

It is certainly true that the stagnation of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the continuation of the occupation of the West Bank by Israel and the increase of settlements in the Occupied Territories, and the activism of Palestinian organisations advocating terrorism and the destruction of the state of Israel, have promoted discouraging attitudes. However, amongst both Israelis and Palestinians, the formula ‘two states for two peoples’ is still supported by a clear majority. But time is running out. The need for a solution is more urgent than ever.

7

Can we compare the rights of Jews over Eretz Yisrael with the rights of Arabs over Palestine?

Just as it is essential to defend the fundamental rights of both individuals and of an entire people, it is equally important to accept that a ‘property right’ over a land must be considered with circumspection. The claims made by both Jews and Arabs are understandable on a human level: the latter claim exclusive rights over both Ramallah and Jaffa, and the former claim exclusive rights over both Tel Aviv and Hebron. Each side insists that their rights are superior, or the only ones. But such a comparison of rights is pointless and becomes an obstacle to the search for a solution. The way forward depends on replacing this competition with the reciprocal recognition of the right of the other to live in independence, peace and security. This is the logic of the idea of ‘two states for two peoples’ which is at the heart of JCall’s activity.

D. Ensure peace, promote coexistence

1

Can Israel make concessions, knowing that its enemies desire its destruction?

We in no way underestimate the dangers that Israel faces from enemies beyond its borders. But the dangers within, resulting from the occupation and the uninterrupted expansion of the settlements in the West Bank, are no less worrying. Soon Israel will face a disastrous choice: either become a state where Jews are a minority in their own country, or put in place a discriminatory regime which dishonours Israel and will transform it into an arena of civil war. Contrary to what some believe, time is not in Israel’s favour. The two-state solution is the condition for the survival of Israel, and we must not let it slip through our fingers. It is not a question of whether or not to make concessions, but of ensuring Israel’s future.

2

Is there not a risk that a Palestinian state will become the base for attacks against Israel?

A peace treaty will include precise details and arrangements concerning Israel’s security. Any withdrawal from the Palestinian territories must be accompanied by strict measures that will ensure the genuine demilitarisation of the Palestinian state and will prevent terrorist organisations from threatening Israel’s security. Of course, nothing can guarantee that the signing of a treaty will put an end to all such risks, and the best guarantee of the security of Israelis remains its military strength. But the same could be said for any country in the world.

3

Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005. A short time later, Hamas took power in Gaza and turned it into a hotbed for terrorism. Isn’t that proof that the withdrawal from the occupied territories puts Israel’s security at risk?

It is certainly true that the current government of Israel has not brought about peace, and that in the absence of a peaceful solution acts of violence will not cease. The occupation has never prevented terrorism. In addition, the fact that the withdrawal from Gaza was undertaken unilaterally, rather than in negotiation with the Palestinian Authority, reinforced the strength of Hamas, who convinced the Palestinians that they had forced Israel to withdraw. It is a lesson worth learning from.

4

Can we depend on the Palestinian Authority to prevent attacks against Israel?

There is no miracle solution, and peace (for which the absence of terrorist attacks is a crucial element) will only be achieved in the long term, following an agreement between the representatives of both sides. That being said, the Palestinian Authority has largely respected the security agreement signed with Israel, and has managed to prevent terrorist attacks from taking place on the land under its control. This is the result of a principle of reciprocity in the Israeli-Palestinian agreement, even though it is both partial and fragile. It is also a result of the fact that it is the Palestinian interest to be governed by a regime that can ensure order and stability. The same logic could be applied in the future, and in a stronger manner, once Israelis and Palestinians have reached a peace agreement that leads to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

5

Do the divisions between various Palestinian factions make a peace agreement with the Israelis impossible?

The Palestinian Authority has certainly been weakened by the internecine violence stoked by Hamas gaining power in Gaza in 2007. It is legitimate to ask today who can claim to speak for the Palestinian people. However, the worst possible alternative is to leave things as they currently stand. Today we must fight for change and put in place the conditions for a future agreement.

6

Is it conceivable that Israel will negotiate with a Palestinian delegation that includes representatives of Hamas?

The Islamist ideology of Hamas, its permanent incitements to anti-Jewish hatred and its aggression towards Israel are unacceptable. However, Israel has already negotiated indirectly with Hamas – for example there have been various ceasefires in Gaza as well as the release of Gilad Shalit. A Palestinian delegation that recognises the right of Israel to exist, renounces terrorism and agrees to honour past accords is the Israeli precondition for any negotiation to end the conflict.

7

Does the existence of settlements in the West Bank inhabited by hundreds of thousands of Israelis make the idea of Israeli withdrawal from these territories impossible?

Israel has in the past evacuated settlements in Sinai, the Gaza Strip and the northern part of the West Bank. Certainly as things stand the populations concerned are much larger and their displacement will have a human cost that cannot be ignored. However the exchange of land on a like for like basis, in the context of a peace agreement, means that a majority of those Israelis who live today beyond the Green Line (the border up until 1967), in the main settlement blocs, will not be concerned by a withdrawal because they will live on land that will become part of Israel. Amongst those who will have to be rehoused, we believe that most of them will leave of their own volition, in exchange for adequate compensation, or will make a symbolic protest. Die-hard opponents will have to give into the democratic rule of law and will not be allowed to dictate the decisions made by Israel concerning its future.

8

Why do the Palestinians refuse to recognise Israel as a Jewish state?

The international agreement demands that the countries recognise each other’s existence, but not their respective ‘identities.’ Israel’s demand for an a priori recognition as a Jewish state is recent in the context of Israeli-Palestinian negotiation – Israel signed treaties with both Egypt and Jordan without demanding such recognition. From the point of view of the Palestinians, the demand that they recognise Israel as a Jewish state returns to the disagreement at the heart of the conflict; such a recognition will be agreed to at the very end of negotiations, and an a priori recognition would block the entire process. A two state solution implies that the Palestinians recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist within secure borders, within which Israel will continue to define itself as the majority of its citizens wish.

9

How will the question of Palestinian refugees and their descendants be resolved?

During the fighting that pitted Arab forces against Jewish forces, in the 1948 war, some Palestinians fled their homes and others were chased from theirs. It was a tragedy, analogous to those vast forced displacements of populations which marked the wars of the 20th century. The only possible response is to establish an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, widen it to an Israeli-Arab peace agreement, supported by the international community. This would not comprise a mass return to Israel: such demands envisage piling injustice upon injustice, and maintaining a permanent conflict which some hope will lead to the eventual destruction of the state of Israel but which is more likely to lead to widespread massacre. All the genuine projects of resolution, such as the Geneva Initiative, envisage that the Palestinians will receive indemnities and will be able to choose to live permanently in the state of Palestine; if they wish to live in another country, Israel included, it will be up to that country to agree.

10

What status do you envisage for the Arabs living in Israel?

They are Israelis (excluding the special case of the Arab inhabitants of East Jerusalem who, in the context of a peace agreement, will be accorded the status of Palestinian citizens) with exactly the same status as their Jewish fellow-citizens, bearing in mind that the reality of that legal equality is sometimes breached and demands permanent vigilance in order that human rights be protected and social justice maintained. The creation of a Palestinian state bordering the state of Israel, in peaceful co-existence with Israel, will lead to the gradual reduction of tensions that have become more acute during the last decades between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs.

E. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict seen from Europe

1

Are there any organisations in Europe which fight for Palestinian rights in the same way that JCall defends the rights of Israelis?

Unfortunately in Europe those self-proclaimed ‘pro-Palestinian’ organisations do not share the same approach as JCall, regarding the simultaneous recognition of both the legitimate rights of Israeli Jews and the legitimate rights of the Palestinian Arab people. The principle of equal rights is asserted by the Palestinian organisations that belong to the Forum of NGOs for Peace, and is supported by the United States by the American Task Force on Palestine. The principle of ‘two states for two peoples’ is not only an answer to what is best for Israelis, but also – and just as importantly – to what is best for Palestinians. We believe that those amongst the European pro-Palestinian activists who persist in denying national rights to Israelis endanger the interests of both sides and the cause of peace.

2

What is your position regarding calls to boycott Israel?

We are categorically opposed to all calls to boycott Israel. Firstly, such calls are counter-productive: since they have no real impact on the commercial economy of Israel, they have no effect in terms of persuading the Israeli government to change policy – but nonetheless they risk persuading Israeli citizens that any change of policy is pointless because ‘the whole world is against us.’ These calls to boycott have a perverse effect: when they take aim at cultural and intellectual production, as is increasingly the case, they weaken those very artists and intellectuals who are often the greatest defenders of the rights of Palestinians. And finally, these boycott calls reflect an unhealthy obsession with Israel, which is the only country targeted in this way, even though there are other countries that are just as blameworthy which are strangely ignored by these boycotters.

3

Are critics of Israel unfairly charged with anti-Semitism?

It can happen that a criticism directed at the state of Israel can be unjustly considered anti-Semitic – both because those who unconditionally support the Israeli government wish to undermine all criticism of Israel by any means available, and also because Jews often feel so threatened by such criticism that they truly experience it as anti-Semitism. Whatever the case, such an accusation is unacceptable if it is not based on facts. However, we cannot ignore the fact that anti-Semites often use anti-Israel speech as a pretext for spreading hate against Jews. Greater vigilance in this respect, on the part of those critics of Israel who are genuinely acting out of antiracist concerns, would help to create a more healthy public debate.

4

Must Israel abandon Zionism in order to live in peace with the Palestinians?

Zionism, as a Jewish national movement, is no less legitimate than the Palestinian national movement. To the extent that we wish to distance ourselves from certain Israeli political movements that claim to be Zionist, we have to debate its meaning. But it is essential to remember that any generalisation about ‘Zionism’ is meaningless, given that it is a movement that has been active for more than a century and embraces dozens of movements that conflict and disagree. Yitzhak Rabin was as much a Zionist – we believe more so – as those extremists who opposed him. The activists of the Israeli movement Peace Now, which fights the pernicious effects of settlements in the West Bank, are also acting in the name of Zionism.

5

Do you agree that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism?

Although it is legitimate to criticise Zionism, the anti-Zionist vocabulary is often suspect and reveals genuine anti-Semitic tendencies: the word ‘Zionist’ serves to conceal the word ‘Jew,’ and ‘Zionism’ is another way of saying ‘international Jewish conspiracy.’ It is undeniable that deeply anti-Semitic opinions go completely unchallenged in certain milieus, for the simple reason that they are disguised as anti-Zionism. Such opinions must be denounced, independent of any position with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Anyone who wishes in good faith to criticise Israeli politics should be able to do so without needing to resort to anti-Zionism. All they need to say, clearly and concretely, is that they are criticising the Israeli government and its leaders.

6

What do you say to those who deny the existence of the Jewish people?

To deny the existence of the Jewish people indicates both ignorance of the facts and a desire to deny the right of the state of Israel to exist. Jewish identity, like that of all the peoples of the world, is a complex reality based on shared history and culture, and a common fate. Whatever the conditions in which the Jewish people came to be, it is both just and necessary to recognise their fundamental rights. Just as the Palestinian people deserve this recognition, it would be strange to deny it to the Jewish people.

7

Do you think that the international community should impose a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Peace will come about between both sides in the presence of their governments. The role of the international community is to facilitate dialogue between the two sides, to propose solutions to both sets of leaders, to urge them to make the necessary compromises. The international community must also create the conditions which will ensure the opening of negotiations which will lead to a lasting peace: any treaty will almost certainly include a clause which will call for the temporary deployment of an international peace-keeping force or international observers, as well as economic assistance, in order to deal with issues arising for the descendants of refugees.

8

Do the European Union and its member states have a specific role to play in the context of an Israeli-Palestinian accord?

Because of both geographical proximity and historical relationships, the countries of Europe are well placed to serve as intermediaries between Israelis and Palestinians, and to establish an international programme to build a stable and peaceful Middle East. In addition, a healthy relationship between Israel, the future state of Palestine and the European Union will open up new possibilities of development in the entire region. However, for such a project to come to fruition, it is essential that Europe and its member states avoid trying to give lessons, for it will not be possible to contribute to negotiations without having the trust of both parties. The peoples of the Middle East do not want moralising lessons or critical speeches, but positive perspectives on a shared future. That is the task of European diplomacy.